HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0620 CC REG ITEM 11DBERNARDO M.PEREZ
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tern
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
MOORPARK
'::OOR ?ARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meetng /
of 19n
ACTION :Z�9 2
Mwe
M E M O R A N D U M
ITEM / I.IJ.
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE_
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C..P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
DATE: June 15, 1990 (CC meeting of 6/20/90)
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORDINANCE (CPO)
Background
On March 7, 1990 the City Council directed the subject of CPO to
an Ad Hoc Committee of Councilmembers Harper and Montgomery. The
Committee was to meet with the City Attorney so as to revise the
draft ordinance to accommodate an additional category of non -
designated pool; base capacity figure of 275000 ADT (Average Daily
Trips) to come from the General Plan Consultant;s Traffic Model.
The Ad Hoc Committee has met several times with the City Attorney
since the March 7, 1990 City Council meeting. There have been
numerous addJEtions, changes and alternatives have been reviewed and
considered by the Committee. Attached is the latest draft prepared
by the City Attorney and was presented to the Council at their June
4, 1990 meeting. At that time, not all of the numbers had been
included by staff and the matter was continued to the Council
meeting of June 20, 1990. The remaining information to be included
in the draft has now been added, and the draft is ready for
consideration.
Discussion
As noted above there have been a number of changes made to this
document since the Council last reviewed the matter on March 7th.
As indicated in staff's last memorandum to Council the following
were items still needing inclusion into the present draft:
1. A title and narrative description of the third category of
institutional land use (Section 17.60.020 (e)).
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
r
�1
The Honorable City Council
June 15, 1990
Page 2
2. The inclusion of the actual Base Capacities numbers (Section
17.60.040 A.).
3. A geographical description of the location of the Carlsberg
Specific Plan (Section 17.60.050 D.1.).
4. The creation of ADT numbers per gross acre for the various
land use designations (Section 17.60.070 A.).
The third title of institutional land use is titled. "Governmental".
This title is to cover such land uses as City Hall, Library,
Caltrans Construction Yard, future museum, etc.
The inclusion of actual base capacities numbers in this draft
differs substantially from the previous draft inasmuch as there is
no separate category for holding capacity or base outside of the
City. The numbers shown on the current draft are those created by
City Staff after reviewing the material provided by the General
Plan Update Traffic Engineer (AF). There are a number of ADT count
numbers which differ between staff's count and that identified by
Austin -Foust (see attached table). Staff's numbers are higher than
Austin - Foust's in the residential land uses and lower in the
commercial uses.
A geographical description for the Carlsberg Specific Plan has been
included inasmuch as this Specific Plan is being exempted from its
inclusion in making up or changing the Base Capacities (see page
7).
Staff has provided ADT numbers per gross acreage for each of the
General Plan Land Use designations. It will require that the
current General Plan Update efforts retain these land use
designations and add only the Governmental designation. This is
not what PBR is proposing.
The following is a comparison review between the draft given to the
Council or March 7th and the proposed draft as modified by the City
Attorney and presented from the Committee:
1. The Section numbers have all changed due to the recodification
of the City's Municipal Code.
2. The Intent and Purpose section has not changed.
3. Minor changes were made in the definitions section:
a. ADT was changed to strike "round ".
b. The words "or a Reorganization" were eliminated.
The Honorable City Council
June 15, 1990
Page 3
C. No change.
d. The term "gross acreage" was added and became a new
definition.
e. This was the previous "d" section and rural low and rural
high was added. Also, school and park were added.
f. &
g. This is an added definition that refers to "Territorial
Area" and Non - Territorial Area. Exhibit A referred to
has yet to be created but is assumed to be the current
City limits.
h. This is a new definition which will deal with future
amendments to the City's General plan.
i. No change (previous "h" section).
Section 17.60.030 (previous 8.60.030) Limitation on General Plan
Amendments has not significantly changed with the exception of
those new definitions noted above.
Section 17.60.040 (previous 8.60.040) Establishment of Base and
Holding Capacities has changed dramatically. There is no longer
the use of Growth Area vs. Non - Growth Area and Section 8.60.050 has
been eliminated which dealt with the Establishment of Base
Capacities inasmuch as Section 17.60.040 has combined the two
functions together. Once the Base Capacity is known, a five
percent factor will be added to created the Holding Capacity.
Section 17.6'0.050 Revision of Base Capacities is generally a new
section which addressed the need to make changes over time. There
are two parts to Subsection B which deals with requests to amend
the current General Plan, and Subsection C which addresses the
possibility of a future annexation to the City. These are
exceptions to Subsection B for Specific Plans and necessary
adjustments because of state mandated amendments to the Housing
Element.
Section 17.60.070 Calculation of ADT. This section is very
important because it is the core from which the Base Capacity
numbers are created. Also, once adopted these identified land use
designations may not be changed without a vote of the people (see
Section 17.60.070, Subsection B). There will need to be an
assumption that no land use designations changes will occur because
of the General Plan Update process. This proposal may precede the
final action on the General Plan Update. Table II attached to this
report gives a comparison between Austin- Foust's ADT numbers and
Staff's as noted previously.
3
The Honorable City Council
June 15, 1990
Page 4
Staff Recommendation
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Attachments:
Tables I and II
Exhibit C - Land Use and Trip Generation
Exhibit B - Appendix A from Austin -Foust Report
Exhibit A - Draft CPO Ordinance
/
r
TABLE I
Comprehensive
Program for General Plan Amendments (CPO)
CPO Land
Use Designations ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3
Rural Low
Y
Y
Y
Rural High
Y
Y
Y
Low
Y
Y
Y
Medium Low
Y
Y
Y
Medium
Y
Y
Y
High
Y
Y
Y
Very High
Y
Y
Y
Neighborhood Commercial
Y
Y
Y
General Commercial
Y
Y
Y
C -I Mix
Y
No
No
Limited Industrial
Y
Y
Y
Medium Industrial
Y
Y
Y
AG. 1
Y
Y
y
AG. 2
No
No
No
OS. 1
Y
Y
y
OS. 2
Y
Y
y
School
Y
Y
y
Park
Y
y
y
Governmental
No
No
No
Other land use
Quasi Public
OS -3
OS -4
designations proposed
OS -4
OS- Landforms
by General Plan Update
OS Landforms
Quasi Public
Quasi Public
Floodury
Floodury
TABLE II
Comprehensive Program for Gneeral Pan Amendments (CPO1
Rate Units ADT
Condos 5.86 355 2080 AF
5.857 756 4,427 Stf.
( +250)
Apartments 6.10 490 2989 AF
6.595 553 3,647 Stf.
Mobile Home 4.81 272 1308 AF
4.814 268 1,290 Stf.
S/F Homes 10.06(13) 6104 59,838 AF
rate) and
10.062 6971 70,142 Stf.
Parks
3.66
385 ac.
141 AF
36.548
29.85 ac.
1090 Stf.
( +70.84)
+2589
Students
Schools
1.03
3,760
3,879 AF
(Elementary)
1.032
3,930
4,055 Stf,
(High School)
1.39
1,093
1,519 Stf.
1,193
1.385 862
Combined totals
5,390 AF
Comments
Under counted number of units.
Staff used category 221, "low rise ", AF
Used 220 "apartment" AF under counted,
LeClub 370, Pines 47, Woodcreek 136.
Number of trailers in park can vary
AF used separate category for Rural (13
creates a rate for SFA ( such are in Varsity
Park) . Calculating AF units at the SFD
rate the new figure is 61,148 very close
to their current 4Lotai. staff
anits that are under construction and these
.,.
•. . i
i . r! c � � - i h a t i i = rH i i , t
( such as Urban West units) which AF
not do.
wifference 4n J. u d g e m e n t z v e r _-vvc7-
(unbuilt parks)
Very close totals need to verify
numbers of students
5,248 Stf.
- continued on next page-
Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments (CPO)
Students
(College)
1.55
13,000
20,150
AF
1.55
11,500
17,825
Stf.
Square Feet
Churches
-
-
-
- AF
AF did not include.
7.69 (w /day)51,248
394 AF
Gov. Office
68.93
11,760
811 AF
Staff used 3 categories to take into
Varies
5,080/2,700/
547 Stf.
account the libarary and Community
3,000
Industrial
6.97
5,912,480
41,210 AF
6.967
2,324,378
16,193 Stf.
Light industrial category
6.969
291,039
2,028 Stf.
Industrial Park category
19.79
23,040
456
Office building category
- --
- --
2,197 Stf.
AC Construction, Misc., La Falda
20,874
Apparently AF based their calculations iip().,
the land area rather than building area.
Staff's calculations show 6,855,472 sq.
ft. of developed industrial ian4
(approximately) . Their total is too high.
Square Feet
Commercial
117.90
51,290
6,047 AF
Convenience commercial
84.50
240,570
20,328
AF
Neighborhood commercial.
52.85
279,470
14,770
AF
Community commercial
18.14
132,960
2,412
AF
Office
704,290
43,217
Various
327,277
30,331
Stf.
Shopping centers, office.
- continued on next page - _ l
Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments (91O1.
128,175* 5,213 Stf. Strip shopping
2,660 Gas Station
Total 38,204 (This figure includes civic center.)
*11.77 acres, assume 25% coverage.
A number of inconsistencies exist in AF's method of computing. The following sq.ft. are listed for
these shopping centers.
Center AF Stat. City Totals
Area 76 (T.A.Z) Town Center 211,270 125,113
Area 99 (T.A.Z) Mpk. Plaza 92,780 55,280
Area 46 (T.A.Z) ,Varsity Pk. Plz. 52,270 21,815
Area 98 (T.A.Z) Gateway Plz. 76,230 30,040
ether questions arise.
Area 123, where is the commercial?
Area 94, 95 are vacant fields.
Areas 26, 31,32, 36, 75, 77, 78 show 179, 590 aq.ft minus 14,340 aq.ft. for 216 Moorpark Avenue
165,250 sq.ft. of commercial area, a very optimistic total, staff's figure of 128,175 is optimistic.
Area 92 is Colin Velazquez's center and Park Lane Center 27,458 sq.ft. + 10,544 sq.ft. total of
38,002 sq.ft. not 16,440 sq.ft.
AF total is 43,257 ADT, staff is 38,204 ADT (for all commercial ADT). Note that staff's total
includes the civic center complex, the adjusted totals are:
- continued on next page -
Comprehensive Program for General Plan Amendments (CPO)
With Gov.Ctr.
AF Staff
44,368 ADT 38,204 ADT
Without Gov. Ctr.
AF Staff
43,557 ADT 37,657 ADT
The above shows a difference of about 6,000 ADT. Staff attempted to use as many categories as
possible, for example, office category 710 for the Poindexter and Baher office, convenience category
851 for Circle K and Tipsy Fox, etc. AF did likewise for office. But out methodology differs for
the choice of commercial category. Staff's version of the ITE Manual has one category for shopping
center (820) which is divided between under and over 200,000 sq.ft. center. AF has a category f(-)r
10- 50,000/50- 100,000 /and 100 - 500,000 sq.ft. centers. We both used the same edition of the ATE
Manual but the formulas differ. Even with these differences the totals are still only 6,000 off.
Staff also took into account each of the proposed General Plan Amendments and a number of options
for Carlsberg which AF did not do. Also AF has no calculations for the non - growth
area.
r
ORDINANC_E NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CHAPTER
17.60 OF THE MOORPARK MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATIVE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT'S.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Moorpark Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding Chapter 17.60 to read as follows:
Chapter 17.60
Comprehensive Program for
General Plan Amendments
17.60.010 Intent and Purpose. The General Plan Is a
comprehensive, long -term plan f:r the physical development
of the City. It is the basic ].ind use charter governing the
direction of future land use it the City. As a result, the
EXHIBIT
f �o
r.
General Plan embodies fundamental land use decisions that
guide the growth of the City. Amendments to the General
Plan have the potential for resulting in ultimate physical
changes in the configuration and character of the City. The
purpose and intent of this chapter is to afford the
residents of the City the opportunity to directly partici-
pate in the decision to amend their General Plan, which
amendments, individually or cumulatively, would have the
effect of significantly increasing the density or intensity
of land use in the City.
17.60.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter,
unless the content clearly requires a different meaning, the
words and phrases set forth in this section shall have the
following meanings:
(a) "ADT" means average daily vehicular trips.
( ;b) "Component" mean, each parcel of land that is
the subject of a General Plan amendment.
(c) "General Plan" means the General Plan of the
City of Moorpark, and each Element thereof, as of the
effective date of this chapter,
(d) "Gross acreage" means gross acreage rounded to
the nearest tenth of an acre.
(e) "Land Use Designation" means rural low
residential, rural high residential, low density_
CJK /WP,'OPD73511
(05/21/90)
(k) "Pre-Amendment Land Use Designation" means the
Land Use Designation from which the component is proposed to
be chanced.
17.60.030 Limitation on General Plan Amendments.
A. The Planning Commission shall not recommend
approval of, and the City Council shall not approve, any
General Plan amendment that we ,-,uld cause the Base Capacities
established by this chapter t,: exceed the Holding Capacities
established by this chapter. In the event that a General
Plan amendment consists of more than one component, the
Planning Commission shall not recommend approval of, and the
City Council shall not approve, any combination of
components that would cause the Base Capacities to exceed
the Holding Capacities.
B. For each proposed General Plan amendment, the
following information shall_ b(, reported bythe Director of
Community Development to the PLanning Commission and the
City Council during the public- hearings required by State
statute and City ordinance.
1. The Pre - Amendment ADT for each
component.
C, -K /0RD 7 35 l
(05/2_'/-
0
17.60.050 Revision of Base Capacities.
A. Neither one of the Base Capacities shall be
increased or decreased, or o,,nerwise revised, except as
provided by this section.
B. Upon the adoption of any General Plan
amendment which would change any permitted land use from one
Land Use Designation to another Land Use Designation, the
City Council shall revise the Base Capacities in accordance
with this subsection. The Pre- Amendment ADT for each
approved component of the Gerieral Pla-n amendment shall be
subtracted from the applicablf- Base Capacity and the Post -
Amendment ADT for each approv d component of the General
Plan amendment shall be addec to the applicable Base
Capacity.
C. Upon the ado.. -,n of any General Plan
amendment that is for the inir_ial. Land Use Designation of
any Moorpark Non - Territorial :area, the City Council shall
revise the Base Capacities in accordance with this
subsection and subsection B o: this section shall not be
applicable. The Initial- Amen,�:nent ADT for each approved
component of the General Plan amendment shall be added to
the applicable Base Capacity. The Initial- P.mendment ADT
shall mean the ADT per gross —re of the initial Land Use
Designation minus ADT poi gross acre times the gross
acreage of the component. Fo purpo-es of subsection B of
CJK /r1P /OP07 3 51 1
(05/21//90)
J
0
income level, that comprise the City's share
of the regional housing need.
17.60.060 Revision of Holding Capacities.
A. Neither one of the Holding Capacities shall be
increased or decreased, or otherwise revised, except as
provided by this section.
B. The Holding Capacities, or either one of them,
may be revised at any time and in any amount by a simple
majority of the voters of the +.itv voting on the revision at
a special or general election.
17.60.070 Calculation of ADT.
A. The ADT by Land U:3e Designation and the land
use category into which each Lund Use Designation falls is
as follows:
Land Use Categories ADT Per Gross Acre
1. Residential
Rural Low
Rural High
Low Density
Medium Low Density
Medium Density
CJK /;aP /ORD7 3 511
(05/21/90)
_g
co a�
4S . t-6
Imo:
17.60.080 Official Record of Capacities.
A. The Director of Community Development shall
keep an official record of the Base Capacities and of each
revision thereto: No revising shali rA maao +-„ «-ti- n
Capacities except as expressly provided by this chapter.
B. The Director of Community Development shall
keep an official record of the Holding Capacities and of
each revision thereto. No revision shall be made to the
Holding Capacities except «s oxpressLy provided by this
chanter.
C. In the event that any General Plan amendment,
or component thereof, fails tc> become effective or is set
aside, voided or annulled by court of competent
jurisdiction, the correspondi:-�i revisions shall be deleted
from the Base Capacities.
17.60.090 Judicial Review. Anv action or proceeding to
attack, review, set aside, void or annul any action to amend
the General Plan contrary to tare orovisions of this chapter
or to revise the Base Capacities or the Holding Capacities
contrary to the provisions of this chapter shall not be
maintained by any person unles. the action or proceeding is
filed in a court of competent urisdiction and the City
Council is served within thirt (30) days after the date of
such action.
Thereafter al'_ p-rsc>ns .ire bagged . from such
CJX /WP /0RD7I - -
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this )rdinance; shall enter the same
in the book of original ordinances cf the city and shall
make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the
records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the
vote is declared by the City 'ouncil.
19
ATTEST:
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
City Clerk
Mayor
APPENDIX A
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
The material contained in this appendix summarizes the land use and trip generation for
the Moorpark Traffic Analysis Model (MTAM) analysis area.
TRIP GENERATION RATES
Trip generation rates used for analyzing development in the MTAM have been compiled
primarily from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) 'Trip Generation" (Fourth Edition).
Table A -1 summarizes the peak hour and ADT trip generation rates for each land use, and Table
A -2 summarizes the purpose splitting factors used to generate productions and attractions by trip
purpose. The following discusses the derivation of the peak hour and ADT trip generation rates
for each land use category.
1. Residential - Rural
ADT and peak hour trip genreration rates were derived from the ITE rates for single family
detached housing. ITE's ADT rate of 10.06 trips per dwelling unit (DU) was adjusted to 13.00
based on rural residential trip generation characteristic of the Ventura County and Moorpark area.
Peak hour relationships were derived from the ITE peak hour rates for single family detached
housing and applied to the ADT rate. AM peak hour inbound (TB) and outbound (OB) rates are
.26 and .72, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .82 and .48, respectively.
2. Residential - Low (SFD)
ADT trip generation rate of 10.06 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for single family detached housing. AM peak hour IB and OB rates
are .20 and SS, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .63 and .37, respectively.
3. Residential - Medium Low (SFD)
ADT trip generation rate of 10.06 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for single family detached housing. AM peak hour IB and OB rates
are .20 and .55, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .63 and .37, respectively.
EXHIBIT
Tacle A -L
MTAM PEAK HOUR AND QT TRIP RATE SUMMARY
I i�
-- AN
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total'
ADT
1.
Res - Rural
DU
-----------------------------------------------------
.26
.72
.98
.82
.48
1.30
13.00
2.
Res - Low (SFD)
DU
.20
.55
.75
.63
.37
1.00
10.06
3.
Res - Medium Low (SFD)
DU
.20
.55
.75
.63
.37
1.00
10.06
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
DU
.15
.49
.64
.55
.29
.84
8.10
5.
Apartment
DU
.10
.43
.53
.46
.21
.67
6.10
6.
Condominium
DU
.07
.38
.45
.38
.18
.56
5.86
7.
Mobile Home
DU
.12
.29
.41
.35
.21
.56
4.81
8.
Convenience Commercial
TSF
11.09
.89
2.98
5.85
6.10
11.95
117.90
9.
Neighborhood Commercial
TSF
..42
.61
2.03
3.66
3.80
7.46
84.50
10.
Community Commercial
TSF
.85
.37
1.22
2.00
2.28
4.28
52.85
11.
Medical Office
TSF
.91
.72
1.63
.98
2.65
3.63
34.17
12.
Office (0 -99 TSF)
TSF
2.03
.30
2.33
.38
1.98
2.36
18.14
13.
Office (100 TSF +)
TSF
.62
.24
1.86
.29
1.51
1.80
12.02
14.
Elementary /Middle School
STU
.14
.09
.23
.01
.01
.02
1.03
15.
High School
STU
.26
.14
.40
.01
.03
.04
1.39
16.
College
STU
.15
.03
.18
.04
.08
.12
1.55
17.
Government Office
TSF
a.94
.94
5.88
2.87
8.16
11.03
68.93
18.
Light Industrial
TSF
.84
.12
.96
.12
.92
1.04
6.97
19.
Warehouse
TSF
.39
.18
.57
.24
.50
.74
4.88
20.
Park
ACRE
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
3.66
21.
Agriculture
ACRE
01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.01
.10
I i�
4. Residential - Medium (SFA)
ADT trip generation rate of 8.10 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were derived by averaging the rM rates for single family detached housing and apartments. AM
peak hour IB and OB rates are .15 and .49, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are
.55 and .29, respectively.
5. Apartment
ADT trip generation rate of 6.10 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the nM rates for apartments. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are .10 and .43,
respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .46 and .21, respectively.
6. Condominium
ADT trip generation rate of 5.86 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for residential condominiums. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are
.07 and .38, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are 38 and .18, respectively.
7. Mobile Home
ADT trip generation rate of 4.81 trips per DU and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for mobile home parks. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are .12
and .29, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are 35 and .21, respectively.
Convenience Commercial
ADT trip generation rate of 117.90 trips per thousand square feet (MF) and the
corresponding peak hour trip rates were taken from the ITE rates for shopping centers (10 to 50
TSF). AM peak hour IB and OB rates are 2.09 and .89, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and
OB rates are 5.85 and 6.10, respectively.
9. Neighborhood Commercial
ADT trip generation rate of 84.50 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for shopping centers (50 to 100 TSF). AM peak hour IB and OB
rates are 1.42 and .61, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and- OB rates are 3.66 and 3.80,
respectively.
M---
10. Communitv Commercial
ADT trip generation rate of 52.85 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the TTE rates for shopping centers (100 to 500 TSF). AM peak hour IB and OB
rates are .85 and 37, respectively, and PM peak hour M and OB rates are 2.00 and 2.28,
respectively.
11. Medical Office
ADT trip generation rate of 34.17 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for medical office buildings. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are
.91 and .72, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .98 and 2.65, respectively.
12. Office (0-99 TSF)
ADT trip generation rate of 18.14 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the TTE rates for general office buildings (10 to 100 TSF). AM peak hour IB
and OB rates are 2.03 and 30, respectively, and PM peak hour rB and OB rates are .38 and 1.98,
respectively.
13. Off ice (100 TSF +)
ADT trip generation rate of 12.02 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the TTE rates for general office buildings (100 to 300 TSF). AM peak hour IB
and OB rates are 1.62 and .24, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .29 and 1.51,
respectively.
14. Elementarv/Middle School
ADT trip generation rate of 1.03 trips per student and the corresponding peak hour trip
rates were taken from the TTE rates for elementary schools. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are
.14 and .09, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are both .01.
1S. High School
ADT trip generation rate of 1.39 trips per student and the corresponding peak hour trip
rates were taken from the TTE rates for high schools. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are .26 and
.14, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .01 and .03, respectively.
16. College
ADT trip generation rate of 1.55 trips per student and the corresponding peak hour trip
rates were taken from the ITE rates for junior /community colleges. AM peak hour IB and OB
rates are .15 and .03, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .04 and .08, respectively.
17. Government Once
ADT trip generation rate of 68.93 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for government office buildings. AM peak hour IB and OB rates
are 4.94 and .94, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are 2.87 and 8.16, respectively.
18. Light Industrial
ADT trip generation rate of 6.97 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for general light industrial. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are
.84 and .12, respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .12 and .92, respectively.
19. Warehouse
ADT trip generation rate of 4.88 trips per TSF and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from the ITE rates for warehousing. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are .39 and .18,
respectively, and PM peak hour IB and OB rates are .24 and .50, respectively.
20. Park
ADT trip generation rate of 3.66 trips per acre was taken from the ITE rates for city parks.
Peak hour trip generation was assumed to be negligible.
21. Agriculture
ADT trip generation rate of .10 trips per acre and the corresponding peak hour trip rates
were taken from selected Ventura County traffic studies. AM peak hour IB and OB rates are .01
and .00, respectively, and PM peak hour 1B and OB rates are .00 and .01, respectively.
3
m
X
I
W
ME
59
SR -,1!
60
58
4
8 s', 132 MOORPARK TRAFFIC MODEL
86 113 123
ZONE SYSTEM
PEACH MILL
112 114 115 120 134 12-6-89
101 136
11 124 126 142
10� ^ 125 ��
100
sQ'� � c
STAN 2
2 �0 logs 1 18 119 121 c=N 127,, 13
�0 108 T 110 128 ,_
WALHUr "Cc, A 0rP 129 143
Fr
106 107 1 1 1 EEK 122 1300' IAA
I�
8
9
1p
56
55
3
1
2
11
13
15 43
45
54
n 57
coI,° 47 48
gr
7
c, c�Me
Vy
53
v
6
44
Z PARK
^
1`
3
14
16
46 W
a 49 50
51
52
4
5
4
L03 ANGELES
20
41
18 19 24
27
28 33
38
42
CASES W,�Kg
\. I
3 4
9PP�
2 3
17 l 21 1� 26 �
29
NA31
G 35
`0�91,41
37
32
I
sPa" 165 36 1 37
77
79 81
-jj
m 64 2 THIRO
0
83
84
62
1 6,31 67 68 691 172741 76
78
80 N 82
NEB °9
90 91 92 94
98 99
133
s9 �
85 7 88 89 4,? 01, 93 95
96
59
SR -,1!
60
58
4
8 s', 132 MOORPARK TRAFFIC MODEL
86 113 123
ZONE SYSTEM
PEACH MILL
112 114 115 120 134 12-6-89
101 136
11 124 126 142
10� ^ 125 ��
100
sQ'� � c
STAN 2
2 �0 logs 1 18 119 121 c=N 127,, 13
�0 108 T 110 128 ,_
WALHUr "Cc, A 0rP 129 143
Fr
106 107 1 1 1 EEK 122 1300' IAA
I�
J
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land
Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
2
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
---------------------
0
1
13
2
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
4
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
4
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
5
1. Res -
Rural
5.00
OU
1
4
5
4
2
7
65
5
TOTAL
1
4
5
4
2
7
65
8
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
8
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
9
1. Res -
Rural
2.00
OU
1
1
2
2
1
3
26
9
TOTAL
1
1
2
2
1
3
26
10
1. Res-
Rural
1.00
OU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
10
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
12
1. Res -
Rural
12.00
DU
3
9
12
10
6
16
156
12
TOTAL
3
9
12
10
6
16
156
13
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
OU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
13
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
17
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
17
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
18
1. Res -
Rural
20.00
DU
5
14
20
16
10
26
260
18
TOTAL
5
14
20
16
10
26
260
19
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
19
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
20
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
20
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
22
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
22
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
23
1. Res -
Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
23
TOTAL
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
24
1. Res -
Rural
5.00
DU
1
4
5
4
2
7
65
24
7. Mobile
Home
32.00
OU
4
9
13
11
7
18
154
24
TOTAL
5
13
18-
15
9
24
219
25
15. High
School
64.00
STU
17
9
26
1
2
3
89
25
18. Light
Industrial
69.52
TSF
58
8
67
-8
.64
72
485
25
TOTAL
75
17
92
9
66
75
574
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL. LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
26
2. Res - Low (SFD)
2.00
_---------------------------------------------------------
DU
0
1
2
1
1
2
20
26
9. Neighborhood Commercial
11.98
TSF
17
7
24
44
46
89
1012
26
11. Government Office
11.76
TSF
58
11
69
34
96
130
811
26
18. Light Industrial
21.52
TSF
18
3
21
3
20
22
150
26
20. Park
4.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
26
TOTAL
94
22
116
81
162
243
2010
27
1. Res - Rural
1.00
OU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
27
2. Res - Low (SFD)
4.00
DU
1
2
3
3
1
4
40
27
TOTAL
1
3
4
3
2
5
53
29
2. Res - Low (SFD)
39.00
DU
8
21
29
25
14
39
392
29
TOTAL
8
21
29
25
14
39
392
30
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
25.00
DU
4
12
16
14
7
21
203
30
TOTAL
4
12
16
14
7
21
203
31
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
14.00
DU
2
7
9
8
4
12
113
31
9. Neighborhood Commercial
38.12
TSF
54
23
77
140
145
284
3221
31
18. Light Industrial
51.31
TSF
43
6
49
6
47
53
358
31
TOTAL
99
36
136
153
196
349
3692
32
2. Res - Low (SFD)
9.00
DU
2
5
7
6
3
9
91
32
9. Neighborhood Commercial
54.67
TSF
78
33
111
200
208
408
4620
32
18. Light Industrial
34.76
TSF
29
4
33
4
32
36
242
32
TOTAL
109
42
151
210
243
453
4952
34
1. Res - Rural
4.00
DU
1
3
4
3
2
5
52
34
TOTAL
1
3
4
3
2
5
52
35
2. Res - Low (SFD)
83.00
DU
17
46
62
52
31
83
835
35
6. Condominium
27.00
DU
2
10
12
10
5
15
158
35
TOTAL
18
56
74
63
36
98
993
36
9. Neighborhood Commercial
.6.75
TSF
10
4
14
25
26
50
570
36
18. Light Industrial
101.47
TSF
85
12
97
12
93
106
707
36
TOTAL
95
16
111
37
119
156
1278
37
18. Light Industrial
513.14
TSF
431
62
493
62
472
534
3577
37
TOTAL
431
62
493
62
472
534
3577
38
1. Res - Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
38
2. Res - Low (SFD)
9.00
DU
2
5
7
6
3
9
91
38
TOTAL
2
6
8
6
4
10
104
39
18. Light Industrial
215.35
TSF
181
26
207
26
198
224
1501
39
TOTAL
181
26
207
26
198
224
1501
40
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
39.00
OU
8
21
29
25
14
39
392
40
18. Light Industrial
51.31
TSF
43
6
49
5
47
53
358
40
TOTAL
51
28
79
31
62
92
750
oi-
1-26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
--------------------------------------------------
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
41
18. Light Industrial
397.27
-----------------------------------------------------------
TSE
334
48
381
48
365
413
2769
41
TOTAL
334
48
381
48
365
413
2769
42
18. Light Industrial
913.71.
TSF
768
110
877
110
841
950
6369
42
TOTAL
768
110
877
110
841
950
6369
45
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
106.00
DU
21
58
80
67
39
106
1066
45
TOTAL
21
58
80
67
39
106
1066
46
2. Res - Low (SFD)
155.00
DU
31
85
116
98
57
155
1559
46
9. Neighborhood Commercial
52.27
TSF
74
32
106
191
199
390
4417
46
TOTAL
105
117
222
289
256
545
5976
47
2. Res - Low (SFD)
144.00
DU
29
79
108
91
53
144
1449
47
TOTAL
29
79
108
91
53
144
1449
48
2. Res - Low (SFD)
131.00
DU
26
72
98
83
48
131
1318
48
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
160.00
OU
24
78
102
88
46
134
1296
48
TOTAL
50
150
201
171
95
265
2614
49
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
186.00
DU
37
102
140
117
69
186
1871
49
20. Park
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
49
TOTAL
37
102
140
117
69
186
1880
50
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
257.00
DU
39
126
164
141
75
216
2082
50
TOTAL
39
126
164
141
75
216
2082
51
6. Condominium
64.00
DU
4
24
29
24
12
36
375
51
TOTAL
4
24
29
24
12
36
375
52
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
110.00
DU
22
61
83
69
41
110
1107
52
20. Park
4.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
52
TOTAL
22
61
83
69
41
110
1121
53
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
73.00
DU
15
40
55
46
27
73
734
53
TOTAL
15
40
55
46
27
73
734
54
14. Elementary /Middle School
450.00
STU
63
41
104
5
5
9
464
54
TOTAL
63
41
104
5
5
9
464
55
1. Res - Rural
12.00
DU
3
9
12
10
6
16
156
55
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
132.00
DU
26
73
99
83
49
132
1328
55
TOTAL
30
81
111
93
55
148
1484
57
16. College
13000.00
STU
1950
390
2340
520
1040
1560
20150
57
TOTAL
1950
390
2340
520
1040
1560
20150
61
7. Mobile Home
240.00
DU
29
70
98
84
50
134
1154
61
TOTAL
29
70
98
84
50
134
1154
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
62
18. Light Industrial
652.18
TSF
------------------------------------------------
548
78
626
78
600
678
4546
62
21. Agriculture
51.80
ACRE
0
1
0
1
1
62
TOTAL
548
78
627
78
601•
679
5
4551
63
18. Light Industrial
64.56
TSF
54
8
62
8
59
67
450
63
TOTAL
54
8
62
8
59
67
450
64
18. Light Industrial
279.74
TSF
235
34
269
34
257
291
1950
64
TOTAL
235
34
269
34
257
291
1950
65
18. Light Industrial
258.22
TSF
217
31
248
31
238
269
1800
65
TOTAL
217
31
248
31
238
269
1800
66
2. Res - Low (SFD)
7.00
DU
1
4
5
4
3
7
70
66
18. Light Industrial
150.63
TSF
127
18
145
18
139
157
1050
66
TOTAL
128
22
150
22
141
164
1120
01
18. Light Industrial
213.53
TSF
179
26
205
26
196
222
1488
67
TOTAL
179
26
205
26
196
222
1488
68
18. Light Industrial
338.84
TSF
285
41
325
41
312
352
2362
68
TOTAL
285
41
325
41
312
352
2362
69
18. Light Industrial
371.61
TSF
312
45
357
45
342
386
2590
69
TOTAL
312
45
357
45
342
386
2590
70
2. Res - Low (SFD)
108.00
OU
22
59
81
68
40
108
1086
70
18. Light Industrial
29.80
TSF
25
4
29
4
27
31
208
70
TOTAL
47
63
110
72
67
139
1294
71
18. Light Industrial
26.48
TSF
22
3
25
3
24
28
185
71
TOTAL
22
3
25
3
24
28
185
72
21. Agriculture
15.80
ACR;
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
73
14. Elementary /Middle School
1020.00
STU
143
92
235
10
10
20
73
18. Light Industrial
48.00
TSF
40
6
46
6
1051
73
TOTAL
44
50
335
183
98
281
16
54
70
1385
74
21. Agriculture
13.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
74
TOTAL
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
p
1
75
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
50.00
DU
10
28
38
32
19
50
503
75
9. Neighborhood Commercial
40.62
TSF
58
25
82
149
154
303
3432
75
18. Light Industrial
36.75
TSF
31
4
35
4
34
38
75
TOTAL
256
99
57
155
185
207
391
4192
76
10. Community Commercial
156.82
TSF
133
58
191
314
358
671
8288
76
12. Office (0 -99 TSF)
54 45
TS;
111
16
127
21
108
129
988
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
..- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
Land Use Type
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
76
21. Agriculture
8.26
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
76
TOTAL
244
74
318
334
465
800
9276
77
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
85.00
DO
17
47
64
54
31
85
855
77
9. Neighborhood Commercial
18.30
TSF
26
11
37
67
70
137
1546
77
18. Light Industrial
66.21
TSF
56
8
64
8
61
69
461
77
TOTAL
99
66
164
128
162
290
2863
78
2. Res - Low (SFD)
11.00
DU
2
6
8
7
4
11
111
78
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
20.00
DO
4
11
15
13
7
20
201
78
9. Neighborhood Commercial
9.15
TSF
13
6
19
33
35
68
773
78
12. Office (0 -99 TSF)
10.91
TSF
22
3
25
4
22
26
198
78
14. Elementary /Middle
School
777.00
STU
109
70
179
8
8
16
800
78
TOTAL
150
96
246
65
76
141
2083
79
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
144.00
DU
29
79
108
91
53
144
1449
79
18. Light Industrial
64.72
TSF
54
8
62
8
60
67
451
79
TOTAL
83
87
170
98
113
211
1900
80
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
160.00
DU
32
88
120
101
59
160
1610
80
TOTAL
32
88
120
101
59
160
1610
81
18. Light Industrial
261.53
TSF
220
31
251
31
241
272
1823
81
TOTAL
220
31
251
31
241
272
1823
82
1. Res - Rural
1.00
DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
13
82
6. Condominium
264.00
DU
18
100
119
100
48
148
1547
82
21. Agriculture
3.11
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
TOTAL
19
101
120
101
48
149
1560
83
18. Light Industrial
498.24
TSF
419
60
478
60
458
518
3473
83
TOTAL
419
60
478
60
458
518
3473
84
1. Res - Rural
2.00
DO
1
1
2
2
1
3
26
84
TOTAL
1
1
2
2
1
3
26
85
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
158.00
DO
32
87
119
100
58
158
1589
85
TOTAL
32
87
119
100
58
158
1589
86
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
131.00
OU
26
72
98
83
48
131
1318
86
TOTAL
26
72
98
83
48
131
1318
87
3. Res - Medium Low
(SFD)
78.00
DO
16
43
59
49
29
78
785
87
TOTAL
16
43
59
49
29
78
78S
88
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
185.00
DO
28
91
118
102
54
155
1499
88
20. Park
4.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
88
TOTAL
28
91
118
102
54
155
1515
89
2 Res - I.ow (SFD)
33.00
DU
7
18
25
21
12
33
332
Ot t
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
ZoneLand
Use Type
Units
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
- ---
- - - - -- -
- -
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
89
9. Neighborhood Commercial
-- -------------------------
8.71 TSF
12
5
-----------------------------------
18
32
33
89
TOTAL
65
736
19
23
42
53
45
98
1068
90
21. Agriculture
24.10 ACRE
0
0
0
0
90
TOTAL
0
0
2
D
0
0
0
0
0
2
91
1. Res - Rural
1.00 DU
0
1
1
1
0
1
91
21. Agriculture
18.80 ACRE:
0
0
0
0
13
91
TOTAL
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
15
92
1. Res - Rural
5.00 DU
1
4
5
4
2
92
8. Convenience Commercial
16.44 TSF
34
15
49
96
100
7
196
65
92
TOTAL
1938
36
18
54
100
103
203
2003
93
21. Agriculture
10.30 ACRE
0
0
0
0
93
TOTAL
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
94
8. Convenience Commercial
34.85 TSF
73
31
104
204
213
416
94
21. Agriculture
9.80 ACRE
0
0
0
4109
94
TOTAL
0
0
0
1
73
31
104
204
213
417
4110
95
21. Agriculture
3.90 ACRE
0
0
0
0
95
TOTAL
0
0
0
G
D
0
0
0
0
0
96
5. Apartment
490.00 DU
49
2I1
260
225
103
328
2989
96
TOTAL
49
211
260
225
103
328
2989
97
2. Res - Low (SFD)
20.00 DU
4
11
15
13
7
20
97
TOTAL
201
4
11
15
13
7
20
201
98
10. Community Commercial
45.74 TSF
39
17
56
91
98
12. Office (0 -99 TSF)
30.49 TSF
62
9
, 71
104
196
2417
98
18. Light Industrial
182.08 TSF
153
22
175
12
60
72
553
98
TOTAL
22
168
189
1269
254
48
302
125
332
457
4240
99
10. Community Commercial
55.67 TSF
47
21
68
111
99
12. Office (0 -99 TSF)
37.11 TSF
75
11
127
238
2942
99
TOTAL
86
14
73
88
673
123
32
154
125
200
326
3615
105
1. Res - Rural
2.00 DU
1
1
2
105
TOTAL
2
1
3
26
1
1
2
2
1
3
26
107
2. Res - Low (SFD)
209.00 DU
42
115
157
132
77
209
107
TOTAL
2103
42
115
157
132
77
209
2103
109
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
233.00 DU
47
128
175
147
86
233
109
TOTAL
2344
47
128
175
147
86
233
2344
110
2. Res - Low (SFO)
195.00 DU
39
107
146
123
72
195
1962
110
TOTAL
39
107
146
123
72
195
1962
1 -26 -1990 -
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM
Peak
Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
------------------------------
Land Use Type
------------------
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
I11
2. Res - Low (SFD)
-
68.00
- - - - -- _----
OU
- --- --
14
----------------------------------------------
37
51
43
25
68
684
111
TOTAL
14
37
51
43
25
68
684
112
15. High School
1029.00
STU
268
144
412
10
31
41
1430
112
TOTAL
268
144
412
10
31
41
1430
113
21. Agriculture
33.10
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
113
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
114
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
279.00
DU
56
153
209
176
103
279
2807
114
TOTAL
56
153
209
176
103
279
2807
115
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
166.00
DU
33
91
125
105
61
166
1670
115
TOTAL
33
91
125
105
61
166
1670
116
14. Elementary /Middle School
781.00
STU
109
70
180
8
8
16
804
116
20. Park
8.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
116
TUTAL
109
70
180
8
8
16
834
117
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
85.00
DU
13
42
54
47
25
71
689
117
TOTAL
13
42
54
47
25
71
689
118
2. Res - Low (SFD)
92.00
DU
18
51
69
58
34
92
926
118
TOTAL
18
51
69
58
34
92
926
119
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
131.00
DU
26
72
98
83
48
131
1318
119
TOTAL
26
72
98
83
48
131
1318
120
3. Res - Medium Low (SFD)
318.00
DU
64
175
239
200
118
318
3199
120
TOTAL
64
175
239
200
118
318
3199
121
2. Res - Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
124
159
142
83
225
2264
121
TOTAL
45
124
169
142
83
225
2264
122
2. Res - Low (SFD)
76.00
DU
15
42
57
48
28
76
765
122
TOTAL
15
42
57
48
28
76
765
123
2. Res - Low (SFD)
177.00
DU
35
97
133
112
65
177
1781
123
10. Community Commercial
21.24
TSF
18
8
26
42
48
91
1123
123
TOTAL
53
105
159
154
114
268
2903
124
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
199.00
DU
30
98
127
109
58
167
1612
124
TOTAL
30
98
127
109
58
167
1612
125
14. Elementary /Middle School
738.00
STU
103
66
17-0
7
7
15
760
125
20. Park
10.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
125
TOTAL
103
66
170
7
7
15
797
126
2. Res - Low (SFD)
121.00
DU
24
67
91
76
45
121
1217
126
20. Park
5.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
126
TOTAL
24
67
91
76
45
121
1236
1 -26 -1990
1989 MOORPARK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION (cont.)
-- AM
Peak Hour --
-- PM
Peak
Hour --
Zone
---------------------------------
Land
Use Type
-----------------------
Units
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
127
2. Res -
Low
(SFD)
222.00
--
DU
- - - - -- -------------------------------------------------
44
122
167
140
82
222
2233
127
TOTAL
44
122
167
140
82
222
2233
128
2. Res -
Low
(SFD)
196.00
DU
39
108
147
123
73
196
1972
128
TOTAL
-
108
147
123
73
196
1972
129
2. Res -
Low
(SFD)
90.00
DU
18
50
68
57
33
90
905
129
TOTAL
18
50
68
57
33
90
905
130
2. Res -
Low
(SFD)
71.00
DU
14
39
53
45
26
71
714
130
TOTAL
lr
39
53
45
26
71
714
`5
June 20, 1990
Honorable Mayor Perez,
City Council and
Planning Commission
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
RE: PBR Comments Regarding The Comprehensive Plan Ordinance (CPO) Process
Dear Mayor Perez, Councilmembers and Planning Commission:
On June 13, 1990 I transmitted to you a letter presenting PBR's concerns regarding the
pending adoption of the CPO and its potential relationship to the General Plan Update
process. After reviewing my rune 13, 1990 letter it appears that the reason for my
initiating the letter may be misconstrued. in the past, staff has mentioned the need for
PBR to be aware of the CPO process and its relationship to the General Plan Update
process. However, my recent written comments were not solicited by staff. It is our
review of the recent Council discussion relative to the CPO that prompted our letter.
It is my strong concern about the process that prompted me to act on my own to
transmit the letter. I apologize if my previous letter misled you otherwise.
Sincerely,
PBR
Cheri Perisho Phelps
Vice President
cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager
Pat Richards, Director of Community Development
PLANNING • URBAN DESIGN . ENVIRONMFNTAL EVAL",,TION . MARKET & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ENTITLEMENT
18012 SKY PARK CM IRVINE. CA G2714 714'�F1 -81320 F. t L "2B1 ?'20" IRVINE • SAN DIEGO k SAN FRANCISCC